“The ‘After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?’ paper argues that the act wouldn’t be classed as euthanasia because the best interest of the foetus or newborn being killed is not necessarily the primary reason his or her life is being terminated. The authors state that after-birth abortion should be made legal and it should be permitted on the same grounds as abortion. They added that it wouldn’t be the same as infanticide.”

…. Are you reading this? Can you believe what they just said?

It “wouldn’t be euthanasia” because they are not seeking the best interest of the newborn being killed. OBVIOUSLY.

I think that’s the whole point though, Kayla – that this argument is being made by those who advocate abortion. They are saying the exact thing you are, that there is no difference, so why not keep promoting abortions and now why not just promote infanticide as well?